Ten-Year Treatment Outcomes of Radical Prostatectomy Vs External Beam Radiation Therapy Vs Brachytherapy for 1503 Patients With Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To compare 10-year oncologic treatment outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) vs external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) vs brachytherapy (BT) for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer (IRPC). METHODS: A retrospective analysis using propensity score matching was performed on 1503 IRPC patients who underwent treatment from 2004 to 2007. Eight hundred and nineteen underwent RP, 574 underwent EBRT to a median dose of 75.3 Gray, and 110 underwent BT using Iodine-125. Biochemical failure was defined by the American Urological Association definition of failure for RP, and the Phoenix definition for EBRT and BT. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 10.0 years for RP, 9.6 for EBRT, and 9.8 for BT. Neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy was given in 0.6% of RP, 58.9% of EBRT, and 12.7% of BT patients, P <.0001. Only 14% of BT received supplemental external radiation. The adjusted 10-year freedom from biochemical failure was 80.2% for BT vs 57.1% for RP vs 57.0% for EBRT, P = .0003. Subset analysis of unfavorable IRPC also showed improved freedom from biochemical failure with BT, P <.0001. There were no significant differences in metastases-free survival or prostate cancer-specific survival after adjusting for age and Charlson comorbidity index. CONCLUSION: BT using Iodine-125, used alone or in combination with supplemental external radiation, is a reasonable treatment option for IRPC patients, yielding equivalent rates of metastases-free survival and prostate cancer-specific survival.

Salvage Cryoablation for Radiorecurrent Prostate Cancer: Initial Experience at a Regional Health Care System.

CONTEXT: Local recurrence after radiotherapy for prostate cancer remains challenging to treat effectively. Although oncologic control is highest with salvage prostatectomy, the procedure is associated with substantial morbidity. OBJECTIVE: To identify factors associated with successful salvage cryoablation for radiorecurrent prostate cancer. DESIGN: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent salvage cryoablation at our institution between 2005 and 2015. All patients had biopsy-proven local recurrence after radiotherapy. Patients with seminal vesicle invasion or metastases were excluded. Complete follow-up was obtained for all patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary study endpoint was biochemical progression-free survival based on the Phoenix criteria. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients underwent salvage cryotherapy. Mean patient age was 69.3 years. The overall biochemical salvage rate was 50.7% at a median follow-up of 3.9 years. The following factors were independently associated with successful cryotherapy: Precryotherapy Gleason score of 3 + 3 or 3 + 4, low precryotherapy prostate-specific antigen (PSA), low precryotherapy PSA density, longer time to PSA nadir after radiotherapy, and low postcryotherapy PSA nadir. A postcryotherapy PSA nadir of 0.5 ng/mL or less was associated with a biochemical progression-free survival of 79.7% at 3 years and 64.7% at 5 years, whereas a postcryotherapy PSA nadir above 0.5 was associated with a biochemical progression-free survival of 5.6% at 3 years and 0% at 5 years (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Approximately 50% of the patients achieved biochemical salvage with cryoablation at 5 years. Nadir PSA after salvage was the strongest predictor of biochemical progression-free survival in our cohort.

Treatment results of brachytherapy vs. external beam radiation therapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer with 10-year followup.

PURPOSE: To compare 10-year treatment outcomes of brachytherapy vs. external beam radiation therapy for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer (IRPC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 2004 and 2007, 93 IRPC patients underwent brachytherapy using iodine-125 to a dose of 145 Gy without supplemental external radiation. A retrospective comparison was performed to a contemporary cohort of 597 patients treated with external beam radiation therapy to a median dose of 75.3 Gy using a propensity score-matched analysis. RESULTS: Median followup was 7.8 years. With brachytherapy, 51.6% had Gleason score 7 vs. 72.0% for external radiation (p < 0.001). Median initial prostate-specific antigen was 8.3 for brachytherapy vs. 9.4 for external radiation (p = 0.01). Neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy was given in 59.5% of external radiation vs. 10.8% of brachytherapy patients (p < 0.001). The 10-year freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) for brachytherapy was 81.7% vs. 54.5% for external radiation (p = 0.002). Unfavorable intermediate-risk patients experienced borderline significant improved FFBF with brachytherapy (p = 0.08). The 10-year freedom from salvage therapy for brachytherapy was 93.2% vs. 72.2% for external radiation (p = 0.006). There were no significant differences in distant metastases-free survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, or overall survival after adjusting for age. Multivariate analysis with propensity score matching showed that brachytherapy remained an independent predictor for improved FFBF (p = 0.007). Grade 1 and 2 late rectal complication rate was 6.5% for brachytherapy vs. 15.2% for external radiation (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Brachytherapy using iodine-125 without supplemental external radiation is a reasonable treatment option for selected IRPC patients.

Observation versus adjuvant radiation or chemotherapy in the management of stage I seminoma: clinical outcomes and prognostic factors for relapse in a large US cohort.

PURPOSE: The management of stage I seminoma has evolved over the past 20 years. Contemporary management options after orchiectomy include adjuvant radiation, adjuvant chemotherapy, and observation. This analysis defines the experience at Kaiser Permanente Southern California from 1990 to 2010. We examined outcomes for stage I seminoma patients and reviewed prognostic factors for recurrence in those managed with observation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective study of 502 stage I seminoma patients who underwent orchiectomy from 1990 to 2010. Outcomes examined were relapse-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS), and cause-specific survival (CSS). Risk factors for recurrence evaluated were age, preoperative hCG elevation, preoperative LDH elevation, tumor size, lymphovascular invasion, rete testis invasion, epididymis invasion, and invasion through the tunica albuginea. RESULTS: Among radiation patients, 5-year RFS was 97.2%, OS was 98.0%, and CSS was 99.3%. Among chemotherapy patients, 2-year RFS was 98.3% and OS and CSS were 100%. Among observation patients, 5-year RFS was 89.2%, OS was 98.8%, and CSS was 100%. There was no difference in OS or CSS among the groups. RFS was significantly lower for observation patients. Among observation patients, univariate analysis identified tumor size, lymphovascular invasion, and rete testis invasion as risk factors for relapse. No factors were significant on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that adjuvant radiation and chemotherapy yield similar outcomes in the management of stage I seminoma. Observation results in a lower RFS, but patients who relapse can be salvaged; OS and CSS are not affected.

Predicting pelvic lymph node involvement in current-era prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: The Roach formula [2/3 × prostate-specific antigen + (Gleason score--6) × 10], derived in 1993 during the early prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening era, has been used to predict the risk of pelvic lymph node involvement in patients with prostate cancer. In the current era of widespread PSA screening with a shift to earlier disease stages, there is evidence to suggest that the Roach score overestimates risk of nodal metastasis. This study retrospectively reviews the validity of this formula as a prediction tool. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We conducted a retrospective institutional review including men with clinical T1c-T3 prostate cancer, with baseline PSA levels and biopsy-obtained Gleason scores who underwent radical prostatectomy with pelvic node dissection from 2001 through 2009 (N = 1,022). The predicted risk of nodal involvement was calculated for each patient using the Roach formula and then compared with actual rates following surgery. RESULTS: The study included 1,022 patients; 99.6% had clinical T1c/T2 disease, with a mean of 10.3 lymph nodes surgically evaluated. Overall, 42 patients (4.1%) had nodal metastasis. For every range of scores, the Roach formula overestimates the risk of nodal involvement. Observed nodal positivity was 1%, 6.3%, 10%, 15.2%, and 16.7% for Roach scores ≤ 10%, >10%-20%, >20%-30%, >30%-40%, and >40%, respectively. The Roach score overestimates the risk by approximately 4.5-fold in patients with scores ≤ 10%, by 2.5-fold for all scores between 10% and 40%, and by 4-fold for scores >40%. CONCLUSION: The Roach formula overpredicts the risk of pelvic nodal involvement in current-era prostate cancer patients undergoing regular PSA screening and with mainly T1c/T2 disease. Contemporary patients are much less likely to have nodal involvement for a given PSA and Gleason score.

Metaplastic carcinoma of the breast: a retrospective review.

PURPOSE: Metaplastic carcinoma of the breast represents a rare and heterogeneous group of malignancies that accounts for less than 1% of all breast cancers. The purpose of this study is to better characterize the clinical management of this disease including the role of radiation therapy after surgery. We compared patients that have been treated with either modified radical mastectomy (MRM) or breast-conserving surgery (BCS). METHODS AND MATERIALS: We performed a retrospective review of 43 patients with metaplastic breast cancer who were evaluated in our regional radiation oncology department between 1987 and 2002. Twenty-one patients were treated with an MRM and 22 with BCS. Five patients from the MRM group received adjuvant radiation, as did 19 patients from the BCS group. Univariate and multivariate analysis of pathologic and treatment-related factors was performed. Local control, disease-free, and overall survival rates were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared for the two groups. RESULTS: Mean follow-up for all patients was 44.2 months. Mean tumor size was 3.4 cm. Four patients (9%) had positive estrogen receptors and 20 (25%) had positive nodes. The overall 5-year projected local recurrence-free (88% vs. 85%, p = 0.86), disease-free (55% vs. 84%, p = 0.13), and overall survivals (80% vs. 89%, p = 0.58) were not significantly different for both groups. The only tumor parameter significantly associated with overall survival was nodal status. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that breast conservation appears to be a reasonable treatment option for women with metaplastic breast cancer, achieving equal survival to mastectomy. The use of adjuvant radiation seems essential for achieving high local control rates after conservation therapy. Further studies will be needed to determine the impact of chemotherapy on survival outcomes.

Treatment of T3 and T4 anal carcinoma with combined chemoradiation and interstitial 192Ir implantation: a 10-year experience.

PURPOSE: To report our experience in treating T3 and T4 anal carcinoma with combined external beam (EBRT) and chemotherapy, followed by interstitial (192)Ir implant boost. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From 1990 to 2000, 31 patients with T3 and T4 anal carcinoma were treated with: 30 Gy EBRT (2 Gy fractions, 5 days/week) + 5-fluorouracil + mitomycin-C. Median implant dose was 31.3 Gy at 0.5 cm, delivered at a mean rate of 0.52 Gy/h. RESULTS: Six patients had local persistence and 4 eventually developed local-regional recurrence. Eight underwent abdomino-perineal resection (APR). With the addition of APR in selected cases, the ultimate local-regional control after initial treatment was 84%. Distant metastases occurred in 10. Of the initial cohort, 55% is still alive and NED. Eight had radiation proctitis and 7 developed postimplant ulceration. Only 1 required surgical intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of T3 and T4 anal cancer with combined chemotherapy and EBRT, followed by interstitial implant results in an ultimate local-regional control of 84%, after the inclusion of selected APR. It is well tolerated, with acceptable toxicity.

Metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the neck from an unknown primary: management options and patterns of relapse.

PURPOSE: Management of squamous cell carcinoma of undetermined primary tumors in the head and neck region is controversial. Here we report the Southern California Kaiser Permanente experience with these patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From January 1969 through December 1994, 106 patients were eligible for this retrospective analysis. Distribution of nodal staging was as follows: 14 N1, 27 N2A, 39 N2B, 2 N2C, and 24 N3. Initial treatment included excisional biopsy alone in 12, radical neck dissection alone in 29, radiotherapy alone in 24, excisional biopsy followed by radiotherapy in 15, and radical neck dissection plus postoperative radiation in 26 patients. RESULTS: Except for two patients, all patients have had a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Overall, 57 patients (54%) have had recurrences. Only two patients (3%) who had received radiotherapy as part of their initial treatment had an appearance of a potential primary site inside the irradiated field vs 13 patients (32%) who had not received radiotherapy (p =.006). Combined modality therapy resulted in fewer neck relapses, particularly in patients with advanced neck disease. Including salvage, surgery alone as the initial treatment resulted in 81% ultimate tumor control above the clavicle for patients with N1 and N2a disease without extracapsular extension. The 5-year survival for the entire population was 53%. Radiotherapy alone resulted in poor survival in patients with advanced/unresectable neck disease. No significant difference in survival based on the initial treatment was found. The statistically significant adverse factors in determining survival included advanced nodal stage and the presence of extracapsular extension. CONCLUSIONS: Radiotherapy is very effective in reducing the rate of appearance of a potential primary site. However, in the absence of advanced neck disease (N1 and N2A without extracapsular extension), radiotherapy can be reserved for salvage. Radiotherapy alone results in poor outcomes in patients with advanced/unresectable neck disease, and incorporation of concurrent chemotherapy and cytoprotective agents should be investigated.